Dad disowns his gay son in handwritten letter

[cybrsage]

I wasn't belittling the religion, sorry if I came across that way.

How else do you think this phrase could be taken?

...their bearded sky fairy

But fair enough, lets just move on and drop it.

What I do question/belittle is the need to create a physical manifestation from the ideals and principles of a particular belief system. Example: does a Christian truly believe in transubstantiation; that when they take a communion wafer into their mouth they are consuming the flesh of Christ or that when they take a sip of wine that they are drinking his blood. Most Christians I have talked to do not believe that, they see it as symbolic. Likewise, the life, death and resurrection of Jesus are symbolic. Like I previously posted, the Bible is a collection of parables, not meant to be taken as factual accounts. Ascribing a physical manifestation to Jesus and others in the Bible is a tool used to help believers feel more connected to the principles being taught.

The Catholic Church has many failings, mostly due to Emperor Constantine's hate for Jews. He actually made it illegal to NOT work on the Sabbath Day and then said the day which was holy to the god of the sun is now the new Sabbath Day (as if Constantine had the power to override God in this).

Due to Constantine and the removal of Judaism from Christianity, they lost a lot of understanding about what the items in the New Testament meant. When Jesus broke break, he was doing what was done for thousands of years by Jews during the Passover. It did not turn into chunks of human flesh for the people to eat - humans are treif and therefor forbidden to eat. The devout Jews, of which Jesus was one, would never have eaten human flesh. The win also never turned into blood, for blood is clearly treif as well and cannot be consumed. The Council of Jerusalem even gave that prohibition to the new Christians who were not Jewish.

Some places in the Bible are parables, but others are not. It is usually quite clear when a parable is used.

EDIT: The biggest problem with discussions about religion is that it is faith based. If you (generic you, not personal you) want to discuss finer points of a religion, you have to assume the god of that religion exists and that the holy books are given by that god (if that is what the religion claims) as a starting point. You do not have to believe it, just accept it as a starting point for the discussion. If you do not do that, then no finer point discussions can happen, for you are still at the "it is entirely not true" stage.

Actually I see quite a number of people committing moving violations; sometimes getting away with it because of the lack of police on the road, sometimes receiving a ticket at the side of the road. You are semi-correct about people doing what will benefit them the most: I drive the posted speed limit not out of fear of getting a ticket but because experience has taught me that I get better gas mileage when doing so. When entering a highway I yield to traffic on the highway, again not out of fear that I will get a ticket but to decrease the chances of causing or being involved in an accident. Lots of things I do while driving benefit not only me but other people in my vehicle and the other drivers on the road; so I do have regard for others in the driving group.

There will always be some people, like you, who do the right thing because it is the right thing. A vast number of people do not, though, and that is why we need laws with punishments attached to them.

For example (to use an far out there one), some people actually see no problem with having sex with 13 year olds. Assuming the 13 year old consents, what is wrong with it? The vast majority of people believe this is morally repugnant, so it is illegal. Without laws and punishments to try and stop this from happening, it would be happening far more often. The Bible gives no age limit on marriage, so this law is not based on the Bible.

Basically, humans need laws to ensure society functions properly. Without them, we turn to anarchy. Humans are selfish, but most creatures are.

 

[alzan]

yep...


Come to think of it, he probably just doesn't care for people's interpretation.

As I replied to cybrsage, what I do question/belittle is the need to create a physical manifestation from the ideals and principles of a particular belief system. Example: does a Christian truly believe in transubstantiation; that when they take a communion wafer into their mouth they are consuming the flesh of Christ or that when they take a sip of wine that they are drinking his blood? Most Christians I have talked to do not believe that, they see it as symbolic. Likewise, the story of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus are symbolic. Like I previously posted, the Bible is a collection of parables, not meant to be taken as factual accounts. Ascribing a physical manifestation to Jesus and others in the Bible is a tool used to help believers feel more connected to the principles being taught.

As far as "bearded sky fairy" or other expressions, they are attempts to communicate with Christians and others in the way they're comfortable; ascribing a physical manifestation to a set of ideals and principles.

 

[alzan]

The list of rights is very huge, and they overlap. A woman has a right to privacy, but a man has a right to equality. Which of these rights is the winner when a man wants to join a woman's only gym, such as Curves. A gym specifically designed to allow women to improve their health without fearing being oogled by men.

My point is, we both know it is not as black and white as you pretend it is. Therefor, there must be some group who creates rules saying whose rights are more important in certain situations.

Actually both men and women have a right to privacy and both have a right to equality.

 

[alzan]

How else do you think this phrase could be taken?



But fair enough, lets just move on and drop it.



The Catholic Church has many failings, mostly due to Emperor Constantine's hate for Jews. He actually made it illegal to NOT work on the Sabbath Day and then said the day which was holy to the god of the sun is now the new Sabbath Day (as if Constantine had the power to override God in this).

Due to Constantine and the removal of Judaism from Christianity, they lost a lot of understanding about what the items in the New Testament meant. When Jesus broke break, he was doing what was done for thousands of years by Jews during the Passover. It did not turn into chunks of human flesh for the people to eat - humans are treif and therefor forbidden to eat. The devout Jews, of which Jesus was one, would never have eaten human flesh. The win also never turned into blood, for blood is clearly treif as well and cannot be consumed. The Council of Jerusalem even gave that prohibition to the new Christians who were not Jewish.

Some places in the Bible are parables, but others are not. It is usually quite clear when a parable is used.

EDIT: The biggest problem with discussions about religion is that it is faith based. If you (generic you, not personal you) want to discuss finer points of a religion, you have to assume the god of that religion exists and that the holy books are given by that god (if that is what the religion claims) as a starting point. You do not have to believe it, just accept it as a starting point for the discussion. If you do not do that, then no finer point discussions can happen, for you are still at the "it is entirely not true" stage.





There will always be some people, like you, who do the right thing because it is the right thing. A vast number of people do not, though, and that is why we need laws with punishments attached to them.

For example (to use an far out there one), some people actually see no problem with having sex with 13 year olds. Assuming the 13 year old consents, what is wrong with it? The vast majority of people believe this is morally repugnant, so it is illegal. Without laws and punishments to try and stop this from happening, it would be happening far more often. The Bible gives no age limit on marriage, so this law is not based on the Bible.

Basically, humans need laws to ensure society functions properly. Without them, we turn to anarchy. Humans are selfish, but most creatures are.

Not at all. I can accept the teachings of the Bible on their own merit without embodying them into a physical person or being. Nor do I think it's necessary for practicing the teachings of or becoming Christ-like for me to picture or believe in a flesh and blood Christ. I don't believe there are areas made just for believers and non-believers to go to when they die. Heaven and Hell are concepts, not locations. As I told Rob M. we create our own Heaven and Hell in this life by how we treat ourselves and each other.

You might want to ask some Catholics and members of other sects of Christianity; quite a few of them do indeed believe in transubstantiation. For them it is as much a fundamental tenet of their belief as believing that Jesus performed miracles.

Some would turn to anarchy without laws, most would not. Living under laws for so long has conditioned us to that structure. If all governments were removed I agree that for a time there would be anarchy; but people would seek to return to a lawful structure. It's how we've lived for all of recorded history and a good portion of non-recorded history. Maybe I just have more "faith" in my fellow human beings than you.

 

[Retro Rob]

As I replied to cybrsage, what I do question/belittle is the need to create a physical manifestation from the ideals and principles of a particular belief system. Example: does a Christian truly believe in transubstantiation; that when they take a communion wafer into their mouth they are consuming the flesh of Christ or that when they take a sip of wine that they are drinking his blood? Most Christians I have talked to do not believe that, they see it as symbolic. Likewise, the story of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus are symbolic. Like I previously posted, the Bible is a collection of parables, not meant to be taken as factual accounts. Ascribing a physical manifestation to Jesus and others in the Bible is a tool used to help believers feel more connected to the principles being taught.

I think cybr said it...without faith in it, it will always be just a tall tale to you.

When it comes to things that happened in the Bible (such as the life of Jesus) that people were there to see and to write down, that's more believable than something no human as ever seen that they love to put a time frame on: Evolution. But... some people take that as fact because of what a "book" or books say.

Really, they are no different that Bible readers from the standpoint of believing what a book says.

 

[dank69]

The list of rights is very huge, and they overlap. A woman has a right to privacy, but a man has a right to equality. Which of these rights is the winner when a man wants to join a woman's only gym, such as Curves. A gym specifically designed to allow women to improve their health without fearing being oogled by men.

My point is, we both know it is not as black and white as you pretend it is. Therefor, there must be some group who creates rules saying whose rights are more important in certain situations.

Good, nice example. Let's start by looking at the right to equality that you reference. Equality of what? Just what equality do you or I have the right to? Just because we must be treated equally in the eyes of the law does not mean we have to be treated equally for everything. So tell me, where do you get the idea that men should be allowed into curves? What equality law do you think applies?

Yeah, there is a lot of easy ones, such as your right to free speech stops before you can yell fire in a crowded theater. What about the right to bear arms? We all agree that chemical, biological, and nuclear arms should not be allowed - but the Constitution puts no such limits on that right...so if we went strictly by the thought that your rights stop where mine start, then I can own chemical arms...I just cannot use them, since that is where your rights start.

When it comes to chemical, biological, and nuclear arms, just possessing them puts millions of people at risk, which infringes on their right to life and/or health. When a gun goes off accidentally, maybe one person might get shot (which, incidentally, is why some minimal gun control is necessary). When a nuclear warhead goes off accidentally, well, you get the idea I hope.

 

[Bill Brasky]

Very sad. I'm about to have a son myself, and I can honestly say I'd be exactly as proud of him whether he's gay or straight. I can only hope that his orientation won't be ridiculed and chastised in school as we become more accepting and civilized as a country.

You sound like a person I'd get along with, and strangely level headed for P&N.

 

[modestninja]

I think cybr said it...without faith in it, it will always be just a tall tale to you.

When it comes to things that happened in the Bible (such as the life of Jesus) that people were there to see and to write down, that's more believable than something no human as ever seen that they love to put a time frame on: Evolution. But... some people take that as fact because of what a "book" or books say.

Really, they are no different that Bible readers from the standpoint of believing what a book says.

Except for the mountains of the evidence supporting one of the "books" and the mountains of evidence contradicting a lot of the accounts in the other book, it's pretty much the same thing.

 

[OBLAMA2009]

that looks like a fake letter to me. gays are known for making stuff like that up to get attention.

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

I think cybr said it...without faith in it, it will always be just a tall tale to you.

When it comes to things that happened in the Bible (such as the life of Jesus) that people were there to see and to write down, that's more believable than something no human as ever seen that they love to put a time frame on: Evolution. But... some people take that as fact because of what a "book" or books say.

Really, they are no different that Bible readers from the standpoint of believing what a book says.

Facepalm.

Have you ever seen gravity? Guess it doesn't exists then...

 

[ch33zw1z]

Facepalm.

Have you ever seen gravity? Guess it doesn't exists then...

Do you feel like that force pulling on you is mere coincidence and that a higher power (God, if you will) is really at work, actively pulling you towards the earth and doing the same for billions (even the ones who don't love him)?

Gravity is a force that can be tested.

God is a force that cannot, people read into little parts about their day or life and find "God's hand" at work.

edit: I'm leaving this post, but I think we were trying to say the same thing to Rob M...

 

[ch33zw1z]

I think cybr said it...without faith in it, it will always be just a tall tale to you.

When it comes to things that happened in the Bible (such as the life of Jesus) that people were there to see and to write down, that's more believable than something no human as ever seen that they love to put a time frame on: Evolution. But... some people take that as fact because of what a "book" or books say.

Really, they are no different that Bible readers from the standpoint of believing what a book says.

Bible = written by man, for man.

Theory of Evolution: Observing the world around us, and trying to find out how things came to be.

 

[zsdersw]

that looks like a fake letter to me. gays are known for making stuff like that up to get attention.

Some do, but some of it isn't made up either.

 

[werepossum]

That's fine, and I'm perfectly willing to accept there was a catastrophic regional flood, maybe from something like a glacial dam breaking or tsunami, that caused enormous destruction and loss of life. However, first, by that point humanity had spread well beyond that one region. We can trace human life in eastern Asia and the Americas to tens of thousands of years ago. If it were to wipe out humanity, it would have had to be much larger than a regional flood. I don't have a problem taking it as a figurative tale describing a bad flood in the same way the Epic of Gilgamesh does, however, taking the bible literally, we have to accept things that simply do not make sense and do not conform to the world as we know it.

The flood isn't even the worst of them though, take the sun stopping in the sky so Joshua can kill better. Do you have any idea what would happen to the Earth if it suddenly came to a screeching halt, stopping all that angular momentum in the crust? The Israelites would be the least of your problems when the entire planet reverts to being a mass of molten rock.

Look, I think there is some good material in the Bible, a lot that can be learned and a lot that still applied to the way we look at the world. In particular I enjoy the dichotomy between the old testament and the gospels and how it informs where we have been as a violent and warlike species and how we can strive to be a giving, compassionate, and peaceful one. It makes for a unique and fantastic mythic history. However, when you take an oral tradition of a tribe of this nature and assume it is inerrant and factually accurate in every respect, especially when you use it as a means to spread hatred, division, and condemnation, we, as a society, have a problem. When you try to legislate that, we have a huge problem.

To the bolded, perhaps nothing. If you posit a being powerful enough to create a universe, stopping a planet's rotation without any undesired effects is child's play. On the other hand, it's absolutely the kind of thing that cannot happen naturally and be mistaken for G-d's hand. But whether it happened exactly as related or it's pure allegory really has no effect on our lives either way - which is good since the truth is unknowable.

I personally take an agnostic view toward the stories in the Bible. If they truly happened, fine. If they are allegorical lessons, fine. Where it's necessary to have a view (which is seldom indeed) I'll simply take what our current science indicates as most likely with the asterisked note that the Bible tells of a more fantastical occurrence. I do not believe either my life nor my soul are adversely affected either way - that is to say, I do not believe a fanatical view that the Bible is correct to the letter in every word (and if we see contradictions it's merely our imperfect understanding) gets one any closer to Salvation.

You sound like a person I'd get along with, and strangely level headed for P&N.

I missed that little gem until you quoted it, but First has a very good point. It's important to differentiate between our dreams for our children - what we want for them - and what our children do of which we may legitimately be proud or of which we should be ashamed. Being gay is neither good nor bad, it simply is what it is. And if it's not what you wanted for your child, it still has nothing to do with whether or not you should be proud of your child.

 

[zsdersw]

Being gay is neither good nor bad, it simply is what it is. And if it's not what you wanted for your child, it still has nothing to do with whether or not you should be proud of your child.

 

[Retro Rob]

Bible = written by man, for man.

Theory of Evolution: Observing the world around us, and trying to find out how things came to be.

Ahh, so we are here by sheer coincidence, eh? I mean essentially, that's what I am hearing.

We just happened to live on the planet with the perfect distance from the Sun, the perfect size/circumference, right mixture of gases to support us, while these other planets, from a human standpoint, are uninhabitable,... all by a random sequence of events?

It's the "greatest Mystery of all time" because of the absurdity of that theory. It's the equivalent of saying this computer I am typing on just appeared by a few chips, a circuit board, plastic caps, and a CD all exploding and resulting in a robust, usable product.

Really, how silly is that?

 

[cybrsage]

Good, nice example. Let's start by looking at the right to equality that you reference. Equality of what? Just what equality do you or I have the right to? Just because we must be treated equally in the eyes of the law does not mean we have to be treated equally for everything. So tell me, where do you get the idea that men should be allowed into curves? What equality law do you think applies?

42 U.S.C. § 1981 : US Code - Section 1981: Equal rights under the law
a) Statement of equal rights
All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall
have the same right in every State and Territory to make and
enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the
full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security
of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall
be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses,
and exactions of every kind, and to no other.
(b) "Make and enforce contracts" defined
For purposes of this section, the term "make and enforce
contracts" includes the making, performance, modification, and
termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits,
privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/42/21/I/1981

There is then a section which says this applies to public facitilites. We also both know that if someone started a white only gym or a male only gym, they would be instantly hit with lawsuits. To succeed, they have to be classified a Private Clubs, which means they are legally allowed to discriminate based on gender or race or whatever they like.

When it comes to chemical, biological, and nuclear arms, just possessing them puts millions of people at risk, which infringes on their right to life and/or health. When a gun goes off accidentally, maybe one person might get shot (which, incidentally, is why some minimal gun control is necessary). When a nuclear warhead goes off accidentally, well, you get the idea I hope.

They only infringes if they are used. When not used, they are quite safe. I do agree with you that we need limits on the second amendment for the very reasons you listed - but who will get to decide where this limit is set? A gun accidently going off can hurt someone, which means they all should be banned? I say no, but some will say yes. Whose rights do we say are less significant, the gun owner's or the accidently shot person's?


Basically, what I am saying is that we already have a system which allows us to create laws based on the ethical beliefs of the majority of the citizens...Congress. The ethics they use are the ones they think will get them reelected, which will be the ones the majority of people in their district hold.

 

[zsdersw]

Ahh, so we are here by sheer coincidence, eh? I mean essentially, that's what I am hearing.

We just happened to live on the planet with the perfect distance from the Sun, the perfect size/circumference, right mixture of gases to support us, while these other planets, from a human standpoint, are uninhabitable,... all by a random sequence of events?

Why is that so hard to understand? Evolution creates organisms for which their environment is "just right".

It's the "greatest Mystery of all time" because of the absurdity of that theory. It's the equivalent of saying this computer I am typing on just appeared by a few chips, a circuit board, plastic caps, and a CD all exploding and resulting in a robust, usable product.

Really, how silly is that?

You contradict yourself quite nicely. You first say the theory of evolution is so absurd, in spite of the overwhelming evidence, instead trumpeting a creationism belief where things just "appeared", then claim that it's totally absurd for a computer to just "appear". I agree, things just "appearing" out of nowhere is generally very absurd... but I apply it to all things, including our origins, not just computers.

 

[alzan]

I think cybr said it...without faith in it, it will always be just a tall tale to you.

When it comes to things that happened in the Bible (such as the life of Jesus) that people were there to see and to write down, that's more believable than something no human as ever seen that they love to put a time frame on: Evolution. But... some people take that as fact because of what a "book" or books say.

Really, they are no different that Bible readers from the standpoint of believing what a book says.

No human has ever seen evolution? Really? So scientists who work with viruses that change (evolve) when conditions in the host threaten the virus' life or sustainability aren't seeing evolution? Insects that adapt to or become resistant to insecticides aren't evolving?

I don't have "faith" in evolution; I accept it as a sound scientific theory as to how species adapt to changing conditions in their environments. It can be tested; it can be proven/dis-proven.

 

[Retro Rob]

No human has ever seen evolution? Really? So scientists who work with viruses that change (evolve) when conditions in the host threaten the virus' life or sustainability aren't seeing evolution? Insects that adapt to or become resistant to insecticides aren't evolving?

My bad, I was talking about the origin of our universe.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

No human has ever seen evolution? Really? So scientists who work with viruses that change (evolve) when conditions in the host threaten the virus' life or sustainability aren't seeing evolution? Insects that adapt to or become resistant to insecticides aren't evolving?

I don't have "faith" in evolution; I accept it as a sound scientific theory as to how species adapt to changing conditions in their environments. It can be tested; it can be proven/dis-proven.

Stuff like fish with legs are pretty damn good evidence of evolution too, showing the fins -> legs evolutionary scenario as well as showing the gills -> lungs scenario considering they can breath on both land and water.

 

[cybrsage]

I personally see no problems with evolution. If anything, it shows God to be even more amazing and powerful. There are two ways to view creation (very simplified). First is that God willed things into being fully formed. God, being all powerful, could easily have done this. No argument there.

The other is also called the Master Programmer view. God started everything when He caused the singularity He created to change from a steady state to being unstable. The Prime Mover so to speak. He did it in such a way that the laws of nature would form EXACTLY as He wanted, so that stars, planets, etc., would form. Our solar system would form perfectly as it did, so that life could start on Earth using the very laws He caused to happen...then macro and micro evolution would both do their work, again following the laws He caused to exist, so that eventually mankind would walk the Earth.

In both cases, everyone would agree God created humanity, it is just that the method used is different. I find the second method to require far more ability than the first.

Now that the modern version of Evolution includes a form of saltation and punctuated equilibrium, it is actually matching the fossil record. Until they were added, I refused to accept the massive amount of faith needed to "match" the theory to the record. The evolutionary theory keeps evolving.

 

[cybrsage]

Facepalm.

Have you ever seen gravity? Guess it doesn't exists then...

Which version, the one by Newton or the one by Einstein?

 

[JKing106]

Ahh, so we are here by sheer coincidence, eh? I mean essentially, that's what I am hearing.

We just happened to live on the planet with the perfect distance from the Sun, the perfect size/circumference, right mixture of gases to support us, while these other planets, from a human standpoint, are uninhabitable,... all by a random sequence of events?

It's the "greatest Mystery of all time" because of the absurdity of that theory. It's the equivalent of saying this computer I am typing on just appeared by a few chips, a circuit board, plastic caps, and a CD all exploding and resulting in a robust, usable product.

Really, how silly is that?

Almost as absurd as believing some dude in the sky is watching every move every one makes, and keeps a list. Almost as absurd as a "loving god" who would send infants to hell (or purgatory, equally stupid) for being born outside of wedlock. Almost as absurd as thinking a supreme being would stick around, pining for our "worship," and sending you to hell if you don't toe the line. Sounds like a couple of people who killed millions in Europe and Russia a almost 70 years ago. What happens to all the billions of people who never heard the word of "Christ," before the modern age? Are they all going to hell? Sounds like they have a pretty good excuse, to me. It's not their fault that Jesus didn't miracle his ass around the world to talk to everyone, simultaneously. He was "God," right?

 

[zsdersw]

My bad, I was talking about the origin of our universe.

Still... why is some "creator" entity more believable than any of the other mathematically rooted theories for the origin of the universe?